Do you think that Non-perpetual Gravity engine are possible to invent?

Yes

No

Read the balanced energy equation given in my first post in the thread correctly.Have'nt I mentioned about this losses in the equation?

It is a Commonsense that any machine has losses,and only thing we can do it is reduce it.We cannot eliminate it.

Note this:1)actual engine will be actually different but will work on same principle and will use some elastic type resistance system instead of the water used in the example.
2) Also note that water resistance in the example is present only on right side and not on left side.

You need to read my whole first comment here to understand fully.

Click to expand...

No, I don't need to read any more. As soon as I saw water splashing out, dropping into a turbine I knew you were off your rocker.

Building machines that generate power, or convert power, and building them to conserve energy, is a very basic kind of science. It really doesn't need any words at all. All you need are a few equations. You need just a little knowledge from 1st semester physics to learn how to formulate your machine. You'll quickly find out that your assumptions are wrong and your idea is silly. This is a very common misconception. People get it wrong all the time.

Let me give an example of how silly it looks. Suppose there's no ball and no splash. Just a valve that opens by computer control. When it opens the water pours into a turbine. Now I have electricity right? Ok what next. What are you going to do to refill your water tank? You're going to pump it back to the top. With what. The electricity you generated, right? Wrong. There won't be enough. You have losses in the turbine and you have losses in the pump. So every time you try to pump it back you have less and less water in the tank until finally there's no water and it stops. We can repeat the example with the ball, but you'll get the same result. It's just a harder problem to solve because now we need to know the density and size of the ball, the height that it falls from etc., and then we have to guess how much water gets splashed, etc. But it's pointless. You just think you have something different from a perpetual motion machine, but you don't.

Sorry it won't work. If you want free energy from water, you need a running stream, or waves or falling rain... something like that. As soon as you have to pump water into a tank to fall onto a turbine, you are fighting a losing battle with way too much loss.

If you need some more help understanding this I can probably find some tutorials or you. Sorry. I hate to burst your bubble, but free energy is just not that simple.

Let's suppose this formula is correct. When you solve for "energy recovered through generator" it will be less than "energy supplied to lift red ball".

In any case, you haven't shown how you get the water back into the tank after it runs through the turbine.

You haven't shown the purpose of the ball. It's useless.

So there are some of your defects.

"Gravitational energy" in a machine is meaningless, because, in order to have a cycle (like returning the water to the top) you have to work against the same gravity that you thought was free. You'll pay extra, because you have friction and other losses. Again: it won't work.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

1)That was just an Very similar analogy,actual engine will be actually completely different but will work on same principle.The resistance element will be like elastic like overcommable solid,but not fluid in my original design.

I have discussed only Analogous example(Basic concept) on Flickr only due to initial Patent law compatibility.I would have revealed the whole engine design itself instead of analogy BUT ;;;

2)"Analogy is a cognitive process of transferring information or meaning from a particular subject (the analogue or source) to another particular subject (the target)"

............When you solve for "energy recovered through generator" it will be less than "energy supplied to lift red ball".

In any case, you haven't shown how you get the water back into the tank after it runs through the turbine.

So there are some of your defects.

"Gravitational energy" in a machine is meaningless, because, in order to have a cycle (like returning the water to the top) you have to work against the same gravity that you thought was free. You'll pay extra, because you have friction and other losses. Again: it won't work.

Click to expand...

WRONG!

3)Limitation of the example/Analogy discussed here:
The analogy only explains a single complete cycle of the engine in comparison to Continuous repeating cycle of the actual engine.
Water is not used in actual engine due to efficiency problems of water turbine energy conversion processes.Water splashing is turbulent and blades opposite reaction of blades to the water striking offers lot of losses.So some other much much more efficient Solid elastic type resistance system is used in actual engine.

Absolutely WRONG and Non-Sense and useless Comment!You have not at all read my first post properly.I even doubt that Acqueos knows what is stress and" Creep "phenomeneons.

4)The idea behind the overcommable resistance is to extend time spent by gravity to act on a heavy object/ball by a few nanoseconds due to the slowing down of the heavy ball speed due to resistance offered.The more the time gravity acts at a particular height(H=H1),the more the gravity energy gained to overcome resistance (splashing the water resistance in analogous example given) as well to rotate the half cycle generator rotor.

5)The splashing of water resistance (overcomming of water resistance)is quiet similar to the Overcomming of cantilever beam resistance by the central weight loading.The machenism of failure of two column supported beam(Simply supported beam) works similarly.Let weight W be loaded at centre.The overcomeability of a good beam should be less at initial stage.Initially there will be allmost an equal and opposite reaction from the beam for the weight loading,with little energy spent for deformation.Slowly ATOMIC Dislocation takes place(slippage of atomic planes/slippage of..............................................

6)I have discussed only Analogous example(Basic concept) on Flickr only due to initial Patent law compatibility.I would have revealed the whole engine design itself instead of analogy BUT ;;;
(A)"A patent document is published in Official gazette for public Opposition and further legal processing ONLY if the idea is novel AND it is never and not at all publishe..................

Your this Meaningless and senseless comment shows that once again you haven't read my post properly.

No, I don't need to read any more. As soon as I saw water splashing out, dropping into a turbine I knew you were off your rocker............

Click to expand...

Many People I have seen have very bad habit.They think they know everything and understood everything and they will post Senseless comments which will not only give them an absolutely a wrong idea BUT will also confuse others.They are so overconfident that they do not read anything fully and will comment spoiling the thread.

"Aqueous" is one of the best Example for such people.

These people fail to proove that Gravity engines are not possible,BUT they are always ready and determined to suppress Real Free Energy Technology,what Nonsense and what a Joke.
I really Laugh at those jokers.

If you need some more help understanding this I can probably find some tutorials or you. Sorry. I hate to burst your bubble, but free energy is just not that simple.

Click to expand...

Yes,definately,if you can help me in Quantum Physics,I will be very happy if you can help me in Quantum Physics.

Unlike Classical Machenics where most Machenical Engineers have good basics,my and other engineer's basics/Fundamentals in Quantum Physics is really bad.

And I am seriously interested in Quantum Mechanics and I am trying to also invent a new kind of Free energy Quantum Nuclear Battery.

If you want free energy from water, you need a running stream, or waves or falling rain... something like that. As soon as you have to pump water into a tank to fall onto a turbine, you are fighting a losing battle with way too much loss.

Click to expand...

I don't want to comment on Aman shah's scheme, which I find kind of incomprehensible. (And unbelievable.)

But the idea of converting free gravitational energy into other usable forms of energy doesn't seem totally outlandish to me.

Why not let the daily rising tide lift water into the equivalent of a tank (an estuary or something), moving it through some kind of turbine or something that extracts energy from the huge slowly moving mass. And then as the tide recedes, let the mass of water flow out again, again extracting energy from it?

Or you could have massive weights attached to huge boyant floats. Let the rising tide lift the weights every day, lock them at their high point, then recover the gravitational potential energy from them through some simple mechanical contrivance that turns a generator shaft or something as the weights return to their lower position to await the next tide.

Hmmm... or perhaps something like this, the worlds largest tidal generator in Northern Ireland.

Click to expand...

Yes,so basically,my engine does not bring any new physics.
It is just an application of regular physics.

Just as tides due to gravity can be used to convert gravitational tidal enrgy into electricity,overcommable resistance system is the key to my engine which converts Gravitational energy into Electrical Energy.(It is not a New energy creator,It is a energy form Converter.)

Each and everything in my engine is based on Commonsense,but to understand it,you should know concepts of stresses,creep,failure due to Yield stresses,slip,dislocation,etc.

Instead of going into the vigorous details,I would like you to see this:

It is like removing some upward resistance and hence you do not find water in left semi bowl in the analogous example(The resistance system is water in Rightside of semi bowl coupled to a energy converter water turbine.).

For example,If there is a 1 kg of solid powder to be lifted upwards,I need X amount of work done upwards.If I have to push 2 Kg of solid powder downwards,I need to consume X plus X (2X)amount of Gravitational energy.

Net Gravitational energy consumed = 2 X -X =X
Which is then converted to Net electrical energy Output.This is what one of the way of satisfacting the Principle,

Mostly real Gravity engines should work on the principle that the Gravity engine/Gravity wheel systems are innovatively designed to take in (consume) much more Gravitational energy than what energy needed to lift heavy ball upward.

Now notice that this cannot be achieved when such a overcommable resistance gradient occurs only with respect to time vertically.In other words,you need your system to be in a cyclic circular path OR in other words the gradient should occur in a circular cyclic path.

Now I have innovatively found a way to do this in a circular path,which cannot be revealed until my invention details are published in official gazette for Public Opposition.

For me,Probability of making Gravity Engines was never a mystery.
I started inventing Gravity engine 5 years back when I had not heard about the words"Perpetual Motion Machines" and I am really surprised that these idiots relate Gravity powered Devices with Perpetual Motion Machines.

Gravity Powered Engimes are not Perpetual devices.
The word "Perpetual" is just like a big virus killing people's ability to think the reality.
Perpetual Motion Machines do not exist and will never ever exist.It is meaningless for you because you are not understanding it nor you know any concepts of creep or Resistance to deformation or Stresses,I guess.I also claimed that unlike the example using water resistance,actual engine uses similar but different kind of resistance system.

If you still relate Perpetual Motion Machines with Gravity engines ,then you will be one of those biggest fools in the society.Really the world is becoming mad and more people are losing their intelluctual capacity to think.

AlexG,
You are also included in this extremly mentally mad world Category,because you do not have any proof that Gravity engines are Perpetual Motion Machines and yet you are relating Gravity engine with PMM illogically.I denied any existence of PMM and yet you are very foolishly thinking that I don't know laws of thermodynamics.

There are some advantages of my Gravity Engines compared to other forms of gravitational engines/devices.
1) Low cost.
2) Easy to install.
3) Size of Tidal energy power plant for same energy produced is much much higher than size of Gravity engine.
4) Lower maintainace than Tidal Gravitational Energy systems.

Common sense tells one that if you get energy from dropping something it will not be greater than the energy used to lift it.

Click to expand...

Oh,that's it???
That is correct if the amount of resistance is same,this conclusion was only made by considering no resistance or same resistance and a straight vertical process rather than circular.

That also depends on the resistance variation.

If there is no resistance upwards and some resistance downwards,then the amount of gravitational energy used to come downward has to be more than energy consumed to come down in absence of resistance.

A ball receives energy to come down from gravity.
Now,if a ball has to push something downwards to come downwards,it's a Commonsense that the ball will need more gravitational energy.

Basically you are violating law of energy conservation by claiming that energy needed to let heavy ball come downward in presence of no resistance=energy needed to let heavy ball come downwards in presence of resistance.
And for just revision,I also stated that in order to decrease the resistnce or eliminating resistance in upward motion which was available in downward motion,I am using a circular path rather than vertical.
Also you are thus disagreeing that gravity is continuous.You are also disagreeing the machenism of failure of a beam on application of weight.

originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

You are also disagreeing the machenism of failure of a beam on application of weight.

Click to expand...

If you would just do a little tiny bit of research you would discover that creep occurs with a CONSTANT force so maybe you could see at least one of your errors that have led you done this pseudoscience path.

The weight is constant for a given unit time.The increased amount of force applied from gravity is being nullified by opposite reaction from resistance of beam ORbeen used there and there itself to displace the beam element.
If its bit complicated to understand,you can already know that any force has to do work.So if gravity acts continuously over a object,it has to do work continously.Where the force applied will go?
It's not that it acts at a single unit time.

Can one can probably here say that gravitational energy gradually in some miliseconds in total does the work?
It's all depends on the stress strain curve.We already know that materials do offer not only opposite reaction but they do store some absorption energy and release it if the stress become non-tolerable.
The absorption energy amplifies the stress in the grains of metal.
When the weight does the work slowly for each gravitational force unit there and there itself,is there increase in Weight?NO,because the energy gained is either consumed or there is equal & opp. reaction from beam and gravity acts continuously over incurring period of time.
In the Same way,even if gravity acts continuously over any object,it does not mean that weight increases.

originTrump is the best argument against a democracy.Valued Senior Member

If its bit complicated to understand,you can already know that any force has to do work.So if gravity acts continuously over a object,it has to do work continously.Where the force applied will go?
It's not that it acts at a single unit time.

Click to expand...

This is simply wrong. A force does not have to do work. A motionless beam in a under the force of gravity does not do work. Perhaps you are using some sort of psuedoscience definiton of work?

The absorption energy amplifies the stress in the grains of metal.
When the weight does the work slowly for each gravitational force unit there and there itself,is there increase in Weight?NO,because the energy gained is either consumed or there is equal & opp. reaction from beam and gravity acts continuously over incurring period of time.
In the Same way,even if gravity acts continuously over any object,it does not mean that weight increases.

Click to expand...

What are you taking about? This is just made up gibberish! It does not make any sense at all.

Howdy.....Hello.....1 Life must be protected at all costs when travelling using gravity. m/m' 2. There may be many methods for gravity flight craft, but they must be formed for human not for robots. 3. Calculating the speed rate of gravity attraction engines is done by m/m'. 4. Don't build it yet, don't patent it yet, don't let this world know how easy it is and to give unto these despotic cruel leaders more power than they ever thought possible. 5. Since I can keep mine a secret for 45 years, you can also. Even though it breaks your heart not to build, but every time you see their interactions you do have justification to deny them, even though you are also denying yourself. It's a self sacrifice for the protection of the good people still left on the Earth. Life, Liberty, and Freedom is Naturally Sacred. Universally. Objective Reality is Naturally Normal.

That is correct if the amount of resistance is same,this conclusion was only made by considering no resistance or same resistance and a straight vertical process rather than circular.

Click to expand...

No, it's always true.

If there is no resistance upwards and some resistance downwards,then the amount of gravitational energy used to come downward has to be more than energy consumed to come down in absence of resistance.

Click to expand...

No, the gravitational (i.e. potential) energy is exactly the same to start in all cases. If there is resistance in the form of friction, then you lose energy to that resistance, and thus do not recover all the energy you put into it.

Now,if a ball has to push something downwards to come downwards,it's a Commonsense that the ball will need more gravitational energy.

Click to expand...

?? No. The ball will come down more slowly, and thus the energy will be lost. The ball cannot "get" any more "gravitational energy."

Also you are thus disagreeing that gravity is continuous.You are also disagreeing the machenism of failure of a beam on application of weight.

Click to expand...

Nope. Gravity is continuous. Beams fail due to the force generated by the weight.